What are the facts? Please keep an open mind and read the article first before casting your vote.

Comment: At the very bottom of this article are found links to other articles in support of the truth that the theory of Evolution has no foundation or bases for truth. Complete with other references and sources.

[1] Evolution is taught and accepted as factual evidence when in fact there is no factual evidence to support the Theory of Evolution. The theory of Evolution purposes that life evolved gradually over millions if not billions of years from single cell organisms to the complex life that exist today on the planet. But where is the evidence in the rocks to support this?

[2] Evidence "in the rocks" or fossils (fossilized remains), is what is used to explain evolution and the diversity of life on the planet. Yet there is a problem with the fossil records. There are no intermediate species depicting this. You would think that if the fossil records is what is used to teach evolution as fact and reason for the origin of life on the planet that the fossil records would be without question. Yet there remains great gaps or holes in the records in the rocks for evolution to be taught as fact. And yet it is.

[3] The gaps are simple to understand when you realize that the Theory explains that life evolved "gradually" over millions of years. That word "gradually," is the key to understanding the gaps. If it takes millions of years for one species to evolve into another, then there should be millions of years worth of fossilized remains everywhere showing the gradual changes over all those millions of years. You just don't show a dinosaur and then a bird and say, "voila, evolution, see!"

[4] One could argue, "but how?" and the debate would go something like this; "Don't you see the similarities in the bone structures of the arms of the dinosaur and the wings of the bird? Why they are practically identical!" But what about the intermediate species that evolved between the dinosaur and the bird? well it turns out that the fossil records is not perfect or that we have yet to find them? Then why is evolution taught as fact in schools everywhere when it is not a proven fact?

[5] Charles Darwin, who wrote, "The Origin of Species," devoted an entire chapter explaining the problem with evolution or as we would say today, debunking his own work.

[6] The Origin of Species:by Charles DarwinChapter 9: On the Imperfection of the Geological Record

"But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."(The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, 1859)

[7] Darwin saw the flaw in his own theory yet he blamed the rocks for not being adequate record keepers. LOL.

[8] "The faults lie not in our stars but with ourselves."(Shakespeare)

[9] He believed in his theory at the time, except for the fact that the fossil records did not support his theory. At least not yet. But perhaps one day all those intermediate species would be found, some how? At least that is what was hoped for. Yet he could not understand why there were not any found at the time when there should be as many intermediate fossils as there are fossils of anything else.

[10] 140 years later Professor Steve Jones of University College London published an updated version of Darwin’s "Origin of Species" in 1999, the fossil records still posed the same problems and gaps.

"The fossil record - in defiance of Darwin's whole idea of gradual change - often makes great leaps from one form to the next. Far from the display of intermediates to be expected from slow advance through natural selection many species appear without warning, persist in fixed form and disappear, leaving no descendants. Geology assuredly does not reveal any finely graduated organic chain, and this is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against the theory of evolution.”(Professor Steve Jones, Almost Like a Whale, p. 252)

[11] Notice how in 1999, Professor Steve Jones called it a "Theory of Evolution." He stated that creatures seemed to be coming into existence almost as if they were "Created" (supernaturally, although he does not use that word, I do) from nothing but the earth. They just came into existence, lived, danced, laughed and then just died out and never even left a forwarding address. LOL.

[12] And that is exactly what the fossil records show. Creatures just suddenly appearing out of no where with no intermediate species before them and then they all die out in some terrible catastrophe of mass extinction never leaving an intermediate species behind to form the next link in the evolutionary ladder? Time and time and time again the fossil records show that species just seem to come and go in and out of existence with no other species leading up to them and no new or diversified species being formed after them. How could that be?

[13] And even when the fossil records show what appears to be missing links between the species they are not. It only appears to be evolution but the facts are grossly misrepresented by the scientific community. Take the evolution of the horse for example. The horse is perhaps the bastion stronghold for evolutionist. "Horses are among the best-documented examples of evolutionary development.(World Book Encyclopedia 1982 ed. p. 333.)

[14] But until not too recently the evolution of the horse has been shown for what it really is. A cruel hoax on an unsuspecting public for the advancement of monetary funds. I see no other way to describe a situation where scientist purposely mislead and defraud the public trust with false evidence to support the theory of evolution that can not be supported or proven. Where no evidence can be found it must be made up or invented. But why?

The following information in the show/hide box can be found and read at(evolution-facts.org.)

I highly recommend visiting that website and stocking up on the truth about evolution and the origin of species and life on this planet.

You do not have to read the show/hide box right away. You can finish reading my article as the "FOURTEEN FLAWS IN THE SERIES [The Evolution of the Horse]" is an even longer article for the bravest of hearts and most unbiased mind willing to learn the truth.

This chapter is based on pp. 775-793 of Other Evidence (Volume Three of our three-volume Evolution Disproved Series). Not included in this paperback chapter are at least 25 statements by scientists in the chapter appendix of the set. You will find them, plus much more, on our website: evolution-facts.org.

Throughout this set of books we have been surprised at the paucity of evidence that evolutionary theory has to offer. We begin to wonder just how evolutionists are able to maintain such a lock grip on the modern world.

In a later chapter (Evolution and Education, on our website, but not in this paperback) we will learn that their secret of success is actually their control of hiring and firing in the scientific world, the colleges and universities, research centers, and scientific organizations. Also they have close connections with the media and the major book publishing houses. No large book company would dare print the book you are now reading under its own name. It is the fear of reprisal that keeps evolutionary theory at the top.

But, to the general public, evolution presents its showcase, assured that they will be ignorant enough of natural history and scientific discoveries to gullibly absorb enough of it to keep them puzzled, believing, and tractable.

Let us begin by considering two of the best evolutionary pieces in this showcase. These are "proofs" of evolution that we have not discussed in detail elsewhere in this paperback. (All the other "best evidences" will also be mentioned in this chapter. The peppered moth has been discussed in detail in the chapter on Natural Selection.)

In all the other "evidences of evolution" which we have examined in this book, we have not found one indication of any transition across species. But, the evolutionists tell us that, in the fossil record, there are TWO times when one species evolved into another. These are considered very important, and have been widely publicized, so we shall discuss each one now in some detail:

Eohippus and the Horse Series

1 - THE HORSE SERIES

30 DIFFERENT HORSES—

In the 1870s, *Othniel C. Marsh claimed to have found 30 different kinds of horse fossils in Wyoming and Nebraska. He reconstructed and arranged these fossils in an evolutionary series, and they were put on display at Yale University. Copies of this "horse series" are to be found in many museums in the United States and overseas. Visually, it looks convincing.

"Horses are among the best-documented examples of evolutionary development."—*World Book Encyclopedia (1982 ed.), p. 333.

"The development of the horse is allegedly one of the most concrete examples of evolution. The changes in size, type of teeth, shape of head, number of toes, etc., are frequently illustrated in books and museums as an undeniable evidence of the evolution of living things."—Harold G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design? (1969), p. 193.

FOURTEEN FLAWS IN THE SERIES—

When we investigate this so-called "horse series" carefully, we come upon 14 distinct problems that negate the possibility that we have here a genuine series of evolved horses. We discover that the evolutionists have merely selected a variety of different size animals, arranged them from small to large, and then called it all "a horse series."

1 - Different animals in each series.

In the horse-series exhibit we see a small, three-toed animal that grows larger and becomes our single-toed horse. But the sequence varies from museum to museum (according to which non-horse smaller creatures have been selected to portray "early horses"). There are over 20 different fossil horse series exhibits in the museums—with no two exactly alike! The experts select from bones of smaller animals and place them to the left of bones of modern horses, and, presto! another horse series!

2 - Imaginary, not real.

The sequence from small many-toed forms to large one-toed forms is completely absent in the fossil record. Some smaller creatures have one or two toes; some larger ones have two or three.

3 - Number of rib bones

. The number of rib bones does not agree with the sequence. The four toed Hyracothedum has 18 pairs of ribs; the next creature has 19; there is a jump to 15; and finally back to 18 for Equus, the modern horse.

4 - No transitional teeth. The teeth of the "horse" animals are either grazing or browsing types. There are no transitional types

of teeth between these two basic types.

5 - Not from in-order strata.

The "horse" creatures do not come from the "proper" lower-to-upper rock strata sequence. (Sometimes the smallest "horse" is found in the highest strata.)

6 - Calling a badger a horse.

The first of the horses has been called "Eohippus" (dawn horse), but experts frequently prefer to call it Hyracotherium, since it is like our modern hyrax, or rock badger. Some museums exclude Eohippus entirely because it is identical to the rabbit-like hyrax (daman) now living in Africa. (Those experts who cling to their "Eohippus" theory have to admit that it climbed trees!) The four-toed Hyracotherium does not look the least bit like a horse. (The hyrax foot looks like a hoof, because it is a suction cup so the little animal can walk right up vertical trees! Horses do not have suction cups on their feet!)

"The first animal in the series, Hyracotherium (Eohippus), is so different from the modern horse and so different from the next one in the series that there is a big question concerning its right to a place in the series . . [It has] a slender face with the eyes midway along the side, the presence of canine teeth, and not much of a diastema (space between front teeth and back teeth), arched back and long tail."—H.G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design? (1969), pp. 194-195.

7 - Horse series exists only in museums.

A complete series of horse fossils in the correct evolutionary order has not been found anywhere in the world. The fossil-bone horse series starts in North America (or Africa; there is dispute about this), jumps to Europe, and then back again to North America. When they are found on the same continent (as at the John Day formation in Oregon), the three-toed and one-toed are found in the same geological horizon (stratum). Yet, according to evolutionary theory, it required millions of years for one species to make the change to another.

8 - Each one distinct from others.

There are no transitional forms between each of these "horses." As with all the other fossils, each suddenly appears in the fossil record.

9 - Bottom found at the top.

Fossils of Eohippus have been found in the top-most strata, alongside of fossils of two modern horses: Equus nevadensls and Equus accidentalis.

10 - Gaps below as well as above.

Eohippus, the earliest of these "horses," is completely unconnected by any supposed link to its presumed ancestors, the condylarths.

11 - Recent ones below earlier ones.

In South America, the one-toed ("more recent") is even found below the three-toed ("more ancient") creature.

12 - Never found in consecutive strata.

Nowhere in the world are the fossils of the horse series found in successive strata.

13 - Heavily keyed to size.

The series shown in museum displays generally depict an increase in size; and yet the range in size of living horses today, from the tiny American miniature ponies to the enormous shires of England, is as great as that found in the fossil record. However, the modern ones are all solidly horses.

14 - Bones, an inadequate basis.

In reality, one cannot go by skeletal remains. Living horses and donkeys are obviously different species, but a collection of their bones would place them all together.

A STUDY IN CONFUSION—

In view of all the evidence against the horse series as a valid line of upward-evolving creatures (changing ribs, continental and strata locations), Britannica provides us with an understatement:

"The evolution of the horse was never in a straight line."—*Encyclopaedia Britannica (1976 ed.), Vol. 7, p. 13.

Scientists protest such foolishness:

"The ancestral family tree of the horse is not what scientists have thought it to be. Prof. T.S. Westoll, Durham University geologist, told the British Association for the Advancement of Science at Edinburgh that the early classical evolutionary tree of the horse, beginning in the small dog-sized Eohippus and tracing directly to our present day Equinus, was all wrong."—*Science News Letter, August 25, 1951, p. 118.

"There was a time when the existing fossils of the horses seemed to indicate a straight-lined evolution from small to large, from dog-like to horse-like, from animals with simple grinding teeth to animals with complicated cusps of modern horses . . As more fossils were uncovered, the chain splayed out into the usual phylogenetic net, and it was all too apparent that evolution had not been in a straight line at all. Unfortunately, before the picture was completely clear, an exhibit of horses as an example . . had been set up at the American Museum of Natural History [in New York City], photographed, and much reproduced in elementary textbooks."—*Garrett Hardin, Nature and Man’s Fate (1960), pp. 225-226. (Those pictures are still being used in those textbooks.)

FEAR TO SPEAK—

Even though scientists may personally doubt evolutionary theory and the evidence for it, yet publicly they fear to tell the facts, lest it recoil on their own salaried positions. One fossil expert, when cornered publicly, hedged by saying the horse series "was the best available example of a transitional sequence." We agree that it is the best available example. But it is a devastating fact that the best available example is a carefully fabricated fake.

"Dr. Eldredge [curator of the Department of Invertebrates of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City] called the textbook characterization of the horse series ‘lamentable.’

"When scientists speak in their offices or behind closed doors, they frequently make candid statements that sharply conflict with statements they make for public consumption before the media. For example, after Dr. Eldredge made the statement [in 1979] about the horse series being the best example of a lamentable imaginary story being presented as though it were literal truth, he then contradicted himself.

". . [On February 14, 1981] in California he was on a network television program. The host asked him to comment on the creationist claim that there were no examples of transitional forms to be found in the fossil record. Dr. Eldredge turned to the horse series display at the American Museum and stated that it was the best available example of a transitional sequence."—L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988), p. 82.

EOHIPPUS, A "LIVING FOSSIL"—

*Hitching has little to say in favor of this foremost model of evolutionary transition:

"Once portrayed as simple and direct, it is now so complicated that accepting one version rather than another is more a matter of faith than rational choice. Eohippus, supposedly the earliest horse, and said by experts to be long extinct and known to us only through fossils, may in fact be alive and well and not a horse at all—a shy, fox-sized animal called a daman that darts about in the African bush."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 31.

NOT A HORSE AT ALL—

(*#2/11 The Horse Series*) Actually the experts tell us that Eohippus has nothing to do with horses.

"In the first place, it is not clear that Hyracotherium was the ancestral horse."—*G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (1969), p. 149.

"The supposed pedigree of the horse is a deceitful delusion, which . . in no way enlightens us as to the paleontological origins of the horse."—*Charles Deperet, Transformations of the Animal World, p. 105 [French paleontologist].

OUGHT TO DISCARD IT—

*David Raup, formerly Curator of Geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, and now Professor of Geology at the University of Chicago, is a foremost expert in fossil study. He made this statement:

"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time.

"By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information. What appeared to be a nice, simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem [with the fossil record] has not been alleviated."—*David M. Raup, in Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (1979), p. 29.

"It was widely assumed that [Eohippus] had slowly but persistently turned into a more fully equine animal . . [but] the fossil species of Eohippus show little evidence of evolutionary modification . . [The fossil record] fails to document the full history of the horse family."—*The New Evolutionary Timetable, pp. 4, 96.

NEVER HAPPENED IN NATURE—

A leading 20th-century evolutionist writer, *George Gaylord Simpson, gave this epitaph to the burial of the horse series:

"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."—*G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.

Earlier, *Simpson said this:

"Horse phylogeny is thus far from being the simple monophyletic, so-called orthogenetic, sequence that appears to be in most texts and popularizations."—*George G. Simpson, "The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals" in Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 85:1-350.

SAME GAPS APPLY TO ALL OTHERS—

The same gap problem would apply to all the other species. After stating that nowhere in the world is there any trace of a fossil that would close the considerable gap between Hyracotherium (Eohippus) and its supposed ancestral order Condylarthra, *Simpson then gives the startling admission:

"This is true of all the thirty-two orders of mammals . . The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed."—*G.G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (1944), p. 105.

OTHER SERIES—

(*#4/2 Other Series*) In addition to the Horse (Equus) Series, there are five other primary series which have been worked out by dedicated evolutionists, all of which are much less well-known or publicized.

These are the Elephant (Proboscidean) Series, the Titanotheres Series, the Ceratopsian dinosaur Series, the Foraminifera Series, and the Bivalve Series.

When one views the charts and pictures of the Horse Series, a common element is noted: Various animals are placed together in the paintings. The common feature is that they all have five characteristics in common: longer than average legs, long body, long neck, long tail, and an elongated head. Placing pictures of several creatures with these five characteristics together—and then adding a short imaginary mane to each—gives the impression that they are all "horse-like." All but one is available for examination only in fossil form.

Then we turn to the Elephant Series, and find that the animals all have a heavy torso with corresponding stouter legs, a drawn-out pig-like or elephant-like nose, and possibly tusks. All but one of the eleven is represented only in fossil imprints or bones. Here is a classic statement by a dedicated evolutionist on the non-existent "Elephant Series."

"In some ways it looks as if the pattern of horse evolution might be even as chaotic as that proposed by Osborn for the evolution of the Proboscidea [the elephant], where ‘in almost no instance is any known form considered to be a descendant from any other known form; every subordinate grouping is assumed to have sprung, quite separately and usually without any known intermediate stage, from hypothetical common ancestors in the early Eocene or Late Cretaceous.’ "—*G.A. Kirkut, Implications of Evolution (1960), p. 149.

The Ceratopsian Series is composed of three dinosaurs with bony armor on the back of the head while two of them have horns in different locations.

The last two, the Foraminifera Series and the Fossil Bivalve (clam) Series, are simply variously shaped shells which look very much alike in size and general appearance.

On one hand, it appears that some of these series are simply different animals with similar appearance tossed together. On the other, the possibility of genetic variation within a species could apply to a number of them. We could get the best series of all out of dogs. There is a far greater number and variety of body shapes among dogs than among any of the above series. Yet we know that the dogs are all simply dogs. Scientists recognize them as belonging to a single species.

[15] This foundationless theory of evolution is what is being taught as "fact" in children schools and Universities in the United States and around the world. And many so called "intellectual" people buy it with out ever really questioning the Theory. They simply accept it as fact. The fact is that if you don't accept this theory as fact, then you are looked down upon by the majority of the intellectual world as being ignorant of the so called facts of the so called "truth of evolution" or are just plain stupid. You take your pick.

[16] Some do not even acknowledge the word "Theory" as simply an idea or a thought and use words like "Unproven Hypothesis?" Whaaat? Yes, the word theory does not simply mean theory but a fact that has yet to be proven??? What ever that means. I always thought that a fact is something proven already, but watch out now, Don't you be ignorant of the difference between the two???

[17] The truth is that money is what makes the world go round and there is a lot of money to be made by keeping the masses ignorant of the truth. Lots of University Dollars that are fought over to the death. Government research grants and top salary jobs in both the government and in the private sector that folks would just kill for if you mess with them. After all slap me in my face and I can eventually learn to forgive you but take away my bread and butter, mess with my J.O.B. and you're dead meat. You're toast waiting to be buttered.

[18] As explained in the article in the show/hide box, "Even though scientists may personally doubt evolutionary theory and the evidence for it, yet publicly they fear to tell the facts, lest it recoil on their own salaried positions. One fossil expert, when cornered publicly, hedged by saying the horse series "was the best available example of a transitional sequence." We agree that it is the best available example. But it is a devastating fact that the best available example is a carefully fabricated fake."(Dr. Niles Eldredge[curator of the Department of Invertebrates of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City]In 1969, Eldredge became Curator in the Department of Invertebrates at the American Museum of Natural History, a position which he still holds.)-Source: Wikipedia.com

Other Articles that support the position that the theory of evolution is not even possible or a Hoax:

Viceroy63 wrote:[15] This foundationless theory of evolution is what is being taught as "fact" in children schools and Universities in the United States and around the world. And many so called "intellectual" people buy it with out ever really questioning the Theory. They simply accept it as fact. The fact is that if you don't accept this theory as fact, then you are looked down upon by the majority of the intellectual world as being ignorant of the so called facts of the so called "truth of evolution" or are just plain stupid. You take your pick.

No one who is being careful with their terminology claims that the theory of evolution is a "fact." (Sometimes people describe the theory of evolution as a fact, but they are not using that word in the sense that it is an objectively measurable quantity, they are using it in the sense that few or zero respected biologists disagree with it.) The theory of evolution is a scientific theory (see below), which means that to describe it as fact is, well, factually incorrect. It is much different from the realm of actual facts (e.g. the fossils we have collected). What science class teaches you always is, and always has been, is the accepted consensus of the scientific community at large of a reasoned explanation for the facts we observe. Physics class is not just about learning that it is a fact that if you throw something upwards, it will fall down; it is about quantifying how long it will take to fall down, given a particular scientific theory explaining gravity. Chemistry class is not just about learning that molecules have electrons; it is quantifying how certain molecules react, using a particular understanding of intermolecular forces. Earth science/geology class is not just about learning that earthquakes happen; it is describing the theory of plate tectonics that we believe explains why earthquakes happen. Similarly, biology class is not just about learning that we have collected certain fossils; it is about learning how all of those fossils are related, in a coherent framework. The purpose of science class is not so much to teach facts as it is to teach the scientific method -- how scientists take a set of data and analyze it to come to a conclusion.

But the theory of evolution has as much acceptance among professional biologists as the theory of plate tectonics has among professional geologists, so it is perfectly reasonable to teach it in the science classroom. If you believe that there should also be a class that teaches about religious outlook on the world, you are welcome to push for it. Or if you believe that we should not teach science in high school, you are welcome to push for that too. But it is absurd to suggest that we should not teach what the vast majority of scientists believe, in science class.

[16] Some do not even acknowledge the word "Theory" as simply an idea or a thought and use words like "Unproven Hypothesis?" Whaaat? Yes, the word theory does not simply mean theory but a fact that has yet to be proven??? What ever that means. I always that that a fact is proven already, but watch out now, Don't you be ignorant of the difference between the two???

The word "theory" just means something specific in science. It is not a reasonable argument to suggest that because you have a different definition of it, that the arguments of scientists is moot. In science, a theory is a hypothesis that explains a set of a data in a coherent manner and, as far as we know, is not in dispute with any other data. In other words, a theory is a hypothesis that actually explains known data. A hypothesis is under no such restriction, which is why "theory" is reserved for better-tested ideas. If you would indict evolution as an "unproven hypothesis," so you must indict Newton's theory of gravity and all the other ones I mentioned above, and more.

I just read his first 5 points and had a great laugh given the irony of the title of the thread!

I don't understand how can people be so blinded by their beliefs... "the rise of ignorance", thank you for sharing yours!

Evolution is not solely based on fossils, but also on observation of living species and the adaptation into subspecies in various habitats. Paleonthologists find year after year fossils of new species by the way, just to answer one of your points.

Only in a few third world religioulsy lobotomized countries and in america people believe in creationism... and allow this fairytale for 5 year old to be taught at school as an undisputable truth

Firstly, I am curious if you have learned the basics of what the theory of evolution comprises, this is not intended as an insult, it is simply that the term, as used in the common English language tends to get muddled and mistakes are common. If so one must understand that it is quite complex, species don't suddenly adapt traits to suit the situation. It is a matter of inherited traits, recessive traits, survival, death, birth and so on.

The successful individual of the brood is able to survive long enough to pass on its part of the equation to another partner who has their own success in surviving; the resulting offspring are giving some parts of each, and can mix with others, slowly making way for traits that stand out as better for the whole.

In other words, it's not simply a matter of yellow turning to green for better camouflage, it’s a matter of yellow mixing with red, yellow mixing with yellow, yellow mixing with blue, and every combination in between, and the few that have the inherited combination for success surviving and remixing to eventually leave green remaining. Thus there is not necessarily a transitional missing link to be identified as such.

Fossils are also finicky thing, bones are not rock; they are made of organic matter and decompose just like any other living tissue.For a fossil to exist conditions have to be just so, without any outside interference, quite akin to a mummy. Most natural mummies are found in bog or the like, separated from the decomposition and crushing forces that would destroy them after death, to say that without fossils there is no way for something to have existed is akin to saying "There is only one found mummy in Greece, I guess only one person lived there at the time."

For the most common type fossilization to occur, minerals must sponge into the organic matter before decomposition sets in, and over time replace it with solid rock, this is found most easily under the sea, where more complete fossilization records do in fact exist.

Metsfanmax wrote:But the theory of evolution has as much acceptance among professional biologists as the theory of plate tectonics has among professional geologists, so it is perfectly reasonable to teach it in the science classroom. If you believe that there should also be a class that teaches about religious outlook on the world, you are welcome to push for it. Or if you believe that we should not teach science in high school, you are welcome to push for that too. But it is absurd to suggest that we should not teach what the vast majority of scientists believe, in science class.

I dunno? A lot of people, and kids are people too, tend to believe in the theory of "Santa Claus." That is also not a proven hypothesis, theory, either and yet year after year you see and hear Mommy and Daddy talking to their children about Jolly ole Santa and hanging Santa Claus stuff like reindeer and those little helpers and like that. Why don't we have a course in schools and universities that teach about the Theory of Santa? Both are unproven facts and both are advanced forward among people in general.

To confuse a Theory with a science is not logical. One is a lie, a fanciful thought the other a fact of nature. The theory of evolution is a lie, an Unproven and unprovable Hypothesis. You are confusing Evolution with Mutations and saying that it should be taught. The science of mutations should be taught in schools and universities but when you assert that we or any animal arose from any other life form on the planet, well that is a fabricated lie and lies should not be taught. Especially not as fact. As I stated with the part about the horse, It is the Bastion of evolutionist but it is the most fabricated hoax in Science. And that is a fact.

I also have a theory that explains where humans came from. I see evidence that mankind arose or came forth from "Martha Stewart's Eternal Vagina." I realized that a lot of you nice folks may be shocked to hear this because no one knew that Martha Stewart even had a Vagina, but she does. And it goes with any decor!

Why don't we teach the Theory of Martha Stewart's Vagina instead of evolution? It's just as unproven a hypothesis (lie), as evolution is. But it makes better sense because if life is going to come out of anything, then it's going to come out of someone's Vagina. Why not? " The Martha Stewart's Eternal Vagina Theory." or "The Big 'V!'" Has a nice ring to it if you ask me.

Last edited by Viceroy63 on Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.

you probably believe that the earth is flat and the sun is the one going around it right?

You are the one confused. Of course the theory of evolution is linked to mutations. As / tried to explain, living forms receive different type of genes, in general given by an alpha male or whatever is the reproduction model of their specie. That alpha male was already among the strongest as it managed to reproduce, therefore one of the best adapted to itsenvironment among its specie. Of all his descendance, only part of it will make it to adulthood and be able to transmit its genes. Take this over 100 000 years on a specie that completes a life cycle every year in a changing habitat (air pressure, temperature, vegetation, available food ect ect). Is the original creature going to be adapted to this new environment? Has the environment changed throughout time? are the same type of descendents always going to be the best adapted, or is it going to be their brother with certain mutations that are the ones with the most odds to make it at some point? Also how do you justify that some species are now extict? what happened to them?

Also what do you think of the neanderthal? that it has nothing to do whatsoever with our specie, and that we are not 2 branches with a common root?

I do not believe that the earth is flat because three thousand years ago, before modern science came to be, True scientist had already wrote in the Holy Bible that the earth was in fact round like a circle.

"[It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,..."-Isaiah 40:22

[Note] Circle does not mean "Rings."

Thick clouds [are] a covering to him, that he seeth not; and he walketh in the circuit of heaven.-Job 22:14

Viceroy63 wrote:I do not believe that the earth is flat because three thousand years ago, before modern science came to be, True scientist had already wrote in the Holy Bible that the earth was in fact round like a circle.

lol. As everybody knows, the bible is the number 1 source of scientific knowledge of the universe So do you really believe the story of adam and eve, which is proved by common sense ( ) but the theory of evolution which no scientist puts in doubt due to common sense and evidence is as likely as santa clause?

Faith is not blind but based on observable facts. But one must first be willing to open their eyes to the truth. That is why I can observe, with my open eyes the fact that Evolution is a lie and should not be taught in schools and universities, as Fact.

Viceroy63 wrote:I dunno? A lot of people, and kids are people too, tend to believe in the theory of "Santa Claus." That is also not a proven hypothesis, theory, either and yet year after year you see and hear Mommy and Daddy talking to their children about Jolly ole Santa and hanging Santa Claus stuff like reindeer and those little helpers and like that. Why don't we have a course in schools and universities that teach about the Theory of Santa? Both are unproven facts and both are advanced forward among people in general.

There is no "theory" of Santa Claus. There may very well be a hypothesis that Santa Claus exists, but there is no documented evidence of such a phenomenon. The theory of evolution is based on documented evidence of observations of the world around us. In other words, we don't need to hypothesize Santa Claus in order to explain any real life phenomena that we observe; we do need to hypothesize evolution to explain real data. Science is about finding the least complicated ways of describing the world that are still faithful to the actual observations; postulating Santa Claus makes things more complex without gaining any clarity about the way the world works, so it is not taught. If you think it should be taught in schools, you are again welcome to do so; perhaps schools should have a class on religion and other faith-based beliefs.

To confuse a Theory with a science is not logical. One is a lie, a fanciful thought the other a fact of nature. The theory of evolution is a lie, an Unproven and unprovable Hypothesis. You are confusing Evolution with Mutations and saying that it should be taught. The science of mutations should be taught in schools and universities but when you assert that we or any animal arose from any other life form on the planet, well that is a fabricated lie and lies should not be taught. Especially not as fact. As I stated with the part about the horse, It is the Bastion of evolutionist but it is the most fabricated hoax in Science. And that is a fact.

What you are doing is confusing science with not-science. It does not matter whether you think the theory of evolution is correct or not. We have science class precisely to teach what the consensus view among scientists is (and also where scientists do not yet think they have the answers). The consensus view among scientists is the theory of evolution. Whether or not you think they are engaged in some global conspiracy to blind people to the nature of God, it is what they think. Undeniably. And that is what science class is about. What is illogical is to suggest that we should teach what basically all scientists think about geology or physics in science class, but we should not teach what all scientists think about biology in science class. For the purposes of whether evolution should be taught in school, this argument is a complete non-starter. Your view will only stop being inconsistent if you argue that we should stop teaching physics and chemistry and geology in high school too, and only teach people a bunch of facts about nature but never give them the mental machinery to process possible connections between those facts.

Viceroy63 wrote:[13] And even when the fossil records show what appears to be missing links between the species they are not. It only appears to be evolution but the facts are grossly misrepresented by the scientific community. Take the evolution of the horse for example. The horse is perhaps the bastion stronghold for evolutionist. "Horses are among the best-documented examples of evolutionary development.(World Book Encyclopedia 1982 ed. p. 333.)

The f*ck? Maybe horses were a bastion stronghold for evolutionists 150 years ago. Maybe they were a bastion stronghold 30 years ago. But so much progress has been made in genetics and molecular biology over the last half century or so that the "bastion stronghold" for "evolutionists" has spread through most of the field of biology. You could argue that immunology or ecology are as much a bastion as horse phylogeny. When creationists say this sort of thing it becomes clear that he or she has not read anything biology-related that was published in the last decade.

Come on. I read Creation as Science. It was awful, but I make an effort damn it. Google, I dunno, epigenetics or something.